Even though I have written in support of the College’s decision to play the anthem, I have been deeply troubled by a perception of a growing cloud of ignorance and intolerance directed against the Mennonite aversion to nationalism, which seems to mimic trends that I’ve seen on a national scale, especially since the election of Barack Obama. People are starting to define in narrow terms what it means to be an American; some of us are “in” and some are “out.” These are the seeds of violent conflict and it’s worrisome to watch.

“Non Menno GC Athlete,” your perspective, founded on tolerance and understanding, is the kind that needs to prevail all across the country if we truly hope to preserve and protect democracy.

I have to share, however, that I was at a football game at Bluffton this year, and they played a recording of the anthem. Everyone stood. No one in the home stands saluted or sang. I could hear the visitor’s stand across the field singing loud and clear. It was like Children of the Corn on our side. We stood as one and slowly turned toward the flag, but stood with hands at our sides in silence. It was a great way to make the point.

That said - you might want to line up a good lawyer. I think flag burning is legally protected in theory, but practice is another story.

I also think Goshen College will change its position in two years. In which case more radical action may not be a good idea. If I were a student (GC 1993-1997), I’d be doing something to show my disrespect for the flag and state.

I fully affirm nonviolent interpretations of the Atonement. My comment about “blood sacrifice” did not have a ton of integrity. I acknowledge that Jesus’ blood sacrifice is quite different than say an American soldier’s blood sacrifice. But many Christians believe in the “substitutionary” theory of the atonement, in which an angry God, in response to our sinfulness, demands a violent sacrifice to be appeased. While this is still something different than American civil religion, it opens up many potential justifications for violence and is enough for me to throw up caution before lauding Christianity over civil relgion.

Saying “Jesus is Lord” is one thing; saying “my belief system is right and yours is wrong” is quite another. Over and over again I hear people refer to the “idolatry” of the national anthem, or I hear people decry civil religion as if it’s self-explanatory why civil religion is evil and Christianity is good. I’ve seen enough good in my non-religious neighbors and enough sinfulness in my Christian brothers and sisters to get fed up with the kind of talk that presumes Christian superiority.

Perhaps we demonstrate our allegiance to Christ best when we are quick to acknowledge the log in our own eye.

Jason seems to draw on similar sources to this Stanley Hauerwas piece:

http://www.plowsharesproject.org/journal/php/article.php?issu_list_id=8&article_list_id=11

Yes, of course, Christianity is based in part on blood sacrifice–the blood of Jesus and of the martyrs. Hauerwas explains why the sacrifice encompassed in the cross is incompatible with the sacrifices of war and of American civil religion.

Christians affirm that Jesus is Lord. It is not clear to me that simply making a truth claim is hypocritical. Hauerwas and Alexis-Baker are not arguing that worship or sacrifice are bad–they are arguing against worshiping or sacrificing to unworthy idols.

He explains that federal law dictates proper etiquette for observing the anthem (standing, removing headwear, putting your hand to your heart, etc). To the best of my knowledge, no law says that any institution has to play the anthem at any time.

Therefore, Goshen College’s old policy of not playing the anthem was a simple choice of preference: they preferred not to play the anthem (for reasons of theology and conscience) and so they didn’t. Now, with the anthem playing, every individual in attendance has the opportunity to essentially perform an act of civil disobedience by ignoring or defying the etiquette spelled out in law.

Conclusion: individual protest is more radical than institutional protest.

I doubt that it was Andy’s intention (since I know he’s one of the key protesters to Goshen’s decision) but his piece seems to support my logic that the real test will be in whether we see Brenneman, Roth, Leichty, and others observing the anthem according to protocol or not.

I am unsure about his dramatic claims of the anthem’s ritualistic hold on our psyche; I will have to do some soul-searching on that one but for now I feel like the concern is overblown.

By the way, is it not interesting that Andy’s piece refers to American patriotism as a “civil religion of blood sacrifice?” Isn’t “blood sacrifice” at the heart of most people’s understanding of Christianity?

The more heretical I become in my Christian faith, the more hypocrisy I see in the deriding of civil religion. The Christian God can easily become an “idol” just blinding as the American flag. I can’t help but hear a sense of self-righteous superiority in the claim that our worship of “God” is better than their worship of the flag. I do have my own faith and belief in a power (a “God”) much higher than the American flag, however, that faith does not lead me to belittle the rituals of American patriots anymore more than it would have me belittle the rituals of any “bonafide” religion.

—————-

Tim, yes, you already stated your objections to the Burkholder school of thought. My point was that I heard Brenneman saying he wants the Burkholder emphases to stand side-by-side (or in tension) with the Bender/Hershberger/Yoder emphases, not for one to take over the other.

I’m sure there are other better ways to make non-Mennonite students at GC feel welcome and valued. One of those ways is to make explicit who the Mennonites are before we take their money so that folks know what they’re getting into. But one way is to let non-Mennonites live out their faith in ways authentic to who they are, not who we are.

Any supposed divisions caused by this anthem decision should not be put on those non-Mennonites who want the anthem played. They feel like they’re being attacked because they are. Read through the comments on that petition:

“The national anthem is a slap in the face for everything the Gospel stands for.”

“I’m ashamed of this decision and the responsible parties.”

“…As GC continues to sell its soul to the devil, might I suggest they consider the benefits of ROTC. And, I’m sure there might be some payoff on having recruiters on-site as students file into chapel each morning–at least 30 pieces of silver.”

Or we could look to Andy Alexis-Baker in his piece on the anthem where the playing the anthem and other engagement with the world makes us “toadies and sycophants for the establishment.” (http://www.jesusradicals.com/goshen-college-hurts-the-church/)

I guess I can’t get my head around the idea that we’re expecting an institution to be pure (especially an academic institution).

As for your response about JB and JLB, I’m sorry if you thought I was attributing those to you. I was responding to Matthew Keiser, sorry if I was unclear.

Anyways, thanks for responding Tim. I have appreciated your article and the discussion here because it has avoided attacking GC over the issue. Well played, Tim.

I think Andy Alexis-Baker does a good job responding to your claims that the Anthem ritual is innocuous here:

http://www.jesusradicals.com/totem-rituals-and-the-star-spangled-banner/

As far as the Brenneman/Burkholder “loyal opposition” position goes, I’ve already clearly explained above why find the “loyal” aspect of this very problematic.

More importantly, we can already see the fruit of school of thought in organizations like Mennonite Mutual Aid. Their president Brenneman appropriate Burkholder’s ethical framework to justify institutional isomorphism. That is, when institutions move to become more like other institutions at the expense of their mission and vision. Mennonite Mutual Aid is much farther along this path then Goshen College…

CharlesB,

I agree that its very important to make non-Mennonite students feel welcome at GC, but seeing the anthem as a solution to this suggests a deep lack of imagination. It treats a symptom without doing anything to address the underlying relationship issues. More then likely, it will exacerbate the divisions, because non-Mennonite students will see opposition to the anthem as an attack on them.

I wouldn’t call Burkholder and Brenneman despicable. I also don’t think that Bender, Hershberger and Yoder are the totality of Anabaptism. There’s a whole new generation of theologian/activists (Andy and Nekeisha Alexis-Baker for example) that are exploring the ways that Anabaptists can engage with the government and society in authentic ways that make it clear where our allegiance lies.

At the very beginning of Anabaptism, it was a movement of radical evangelical social change activists. I’m hopeful that a new generation of Anabaptists are reviving those roots. But I’m deeply skeptical that a philosophy of “loyal opposition” that puts accommodation and compromise at the center will lead the way.

To me allowing the anthem to be played seems like a very small, sensible compromise for Mennonites to make in order to demonstrate to other students that they are equally valued on campus.

I don’t know what it’s like at Goshen but I know that when I was at Bethel (KS) the non-Mennonite voice felt at least a little bit marginalized, even though Mennonites made up only 40% of the student body (much less than at Goshen).

People talk about the anthem as if it waters down, compromises, even makes hypocrisy of everything else Goshen does in the name of Mennonite identity and peacemaking. I simply cannot understand this logic. Maybe if Jim Brenneman, John Roth, Joe Leichty, and others all faced the flag with their hands on their hearts, mouthing the words as the anthem played, then I would sense that Goshen’s peace witness is being compromised. Until then I foresee non-Mennonite Goshen athletes feeling more at home there and more receptive to the Mennonite-based teachings of Roth, Leichty, and others. Perhaps one of these students will eventually even think twice before putting their hand to their heart as the instrumental anthem plays over the land of the Mapleleaf.

Also, I don’t see Brenneman rejecting Bender, Hershberger, and Yoder. His speech fully affirms their approach. He says he desires a “synthesis” between the culture of dissent and the culture of engagement. I don’t get why people think he’s going off the deep end in one direction. TimN says he uses the “loaded term ‘naysayers’” to describe the B/H/Y school of thought. He also uses the terms “prophets” and “non-conformists.” He says we need naysayers to “proclaim the radical “NO” to injustice.” That seems pretty affirming to me.

Thank you for your response.

Goshen does claim to be a Mennonite college (thank you for pointing me to that) but as a recent alum I’m not entirely sure that gets to the root of who GC is or who they are becoming. Goshen was started by the Mennonite church as a place of higher learning for Mennonites and Goshen is still supported by and affiliated with the Mennonite church.

However, Mennonites have not been attending Goshen (or any Mennonite college, I believe) in sustainable rates for quite some time. Mennonites, while a major constituency of Goshen College, are no longer the only one. To call non-Mennonites “a sizable minority” sounds dismissive to me, after all there are more non-Mennonites than men on campus (http://www.goshen.edu/aboutgc/diversity/). I do not believe that Goshen College can claim a pure Mennonite identity anymore nor do I believe that it should.

That is not to say that Goshen is in no way Mennonite, that is certainly going too far and I’m sorry if it was overstated in my last post. I value the Mennonite voice of Goshen College, and I would mourn the loss of that identity. However that identity is not the sum of Goshen College nor the only thing of value there.

The Goshen College I know was (and I believe still is) trying negotiate this complex identity balancing Mennonite heritage/identity/theology with the reality of an increasingly diverse student body. Goshen’s mission has expanded beyond the education of Mennonite youth to encompass those outside the Mennonite tradition as well. While this decision to play the national anthem before some sporting events does not reflect my faith, it does reflect someone’s. And I’m not entirely convinced that the decision is not opening up room for dialogue in ways that refraining hadn’t.

Your concern of Goshen losing its Mennonite heritage is valid and something I share but your characterization of dialogue leaves much to be desired. First let me say that a major problem for non-Mennonites at Goshen is feeling like outsiders. Many leave because they feel excluded by insider Mennonite language, cultural references and theology. Too often Mennonite concerns and ideas dominate the discourse on campus to the exclusion of others.

In playing the anthem before some sporting events the Goshen administration legitimizes (some) of these non-Mennonite folks’ presence and experience at the college. In addition this decision shows humility and the recognition of a view other than our own. Much of how you talked about dialogue sounded more like a persuasive speech, its one way with us “[seeking] to win over the non-Mennoniite dissenters.” However as all on this blog realize dialogue is two way and we must also open ourselves up to learning and change for dialogue to truly take place.

So again I ask how can Goshen “find a way to honor its Mennonite heritage without silencing the rich and diverse opinions within the community?” Perhaps they can distance the decision to play then anthem from the college’s teaching position by placing the decision and implementation to play the anthem with the athletes. It’s a tricky question, but an important one that I think Goshen has been struggling with and should be made more explicit.

As for the Brenneman/Burkholder philosophy, perhaps I did “swallow whole” their idea of engagement. Certainly I should real more Burkholder before I can speak intelligently about his thought. However I think Brenneman and Burkholder should be shown more respect than you gave them in the calling their ideas “despicable and intellectually shallow.” I also take issue with the idea that Anabaptist thought is found in its totality in Bender, Hershberger and Yoder.

Finally, in my own experience working in DC as a policy advocate, I find that engagement with the government is important not because it gives me power, but because it empowers people to help others. Many of my organizations constituents would cease to provide services for those in need without government funding. I engage not for myself but for others. Engagement is important and I hope that with its new school of thought Goshen will help students explore creative and faithful ways for Christians to engage the world.

I have to take exception to just about everything you wrote. I’m not quite sure why you think that Goshen is “not just a Mennonite institution” any longer. Certainly there is a sizable minority of non-Mennonites on GC’s campus but Goshen’s own website specifically refers to itself as a “Mennonite College”:

http://www.goshen.edu/aboutgc/mennonites/

More importantly it is in fact a manifestation of the church; founded by the (old) Mennonite Church, built on and guided by Mennonite/Anabaptist principles, supported by and directly affilaited with MCUSA:

http://www.mennoniteeducation.org/MEAPortal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=283

and with a majority student population that either are Mennonite/Anabaptist or are drawn to the Mennonite distinctives of the college. How is it then that Goshen has essentially outgrown its Mennoniteness?

If then it is a Mennonite institution what kind of logic is it to essentially deny their Mennonite distinctives, water-down their theology and witness to the world in order to give voice to a minority non-Mennonite population that may or may not feel silenced or to try and seek to engage with a world that plays by a different set of rules? Not that giving voice to dissent or culural engagement isn’t a good thing; it’s vital and necessary but wouldn’t it make more sense for Goshen to maintain their solidly Anabaptist identity, find ways to facilitate greater open dialogue and dissent and dare I say it…seek to win over the non-Mennoniite dissenters both on the campus and in the world with their counter-cultural ideas, their distinctive way of life and being church and their committment to Christ? How exactly does capitulation to the culture-at-large or a shedding and shredding of their Mennonite theology gain them respect and engagement with the world or with the non-Mennonites on their campus? What will be left to engage with? Once they’ve become like every other “Christian Liberal Arts College” what makes you think that anyone will want to engage with them at all? What differences, what unique ideas, what deep tradition will they bring to the table that will make the world curious, that will spark dialogue?

As for Mr. Brenneman’s twisted “2 Schools of Thought” philospohy. While you don’t like the packaging of it you seem to swallow whole this dispicable and intellectually shallow idea of compromising values and doctrine in order to gain credibility, power and traction in the larger culture. The Brenneman/Burkholder philosophy is a direct repudiation of Bender, Hershberger, Yoder and Anabaptism in general. Moreover their “new” school of thought while perhaps novel for Goshen Mennonites is not exactly new, it’s simply a tired reiteration of the brothers Niebhur with the obligitory “Mennonitey” veneer that keeps them from being dismissed out-of-hand.

One last thought, while the work of Bender, Hershberger and Yoder were obviously infuenced heavily by the Mennonite world in which they lived and moved and breathed; their work, especially that of Yoder, was Christocentric. We are this way, we believe this way, we live this way because we are essentially and primarily followers of Christ. Can the same be said for the Brenneman/Burkholder break? Is it Cristocentric, is it even bibliocentric? Except for some weak appeal to the Old Testament prophets it relies mainly on appeals to logic, expediency and some sense of “civic duty” that again comes less from Christ and more from Reinhold and Richard Niebhur.

Regardless the amount of discussion this decision has generated is impressive and it really gets to the heart of who Goshen is as an institution. Are we a manifestation of the church? Should our witness be pure?

Goshen has a desire for diversity and a growing number of non-Mennonite students. The college can’t speak as an extension of the Mennonite church and speak for/represent all of its students. I believe that to do so would be to silence those non-Mennonites on campus.

Goshen is struggling to find its voice. While I’m not a fan of how Jim Brenneman characterized this new school of thought in his speech, I think that it is a crucial first step to Goshen recognizing that we are not just a Mennonite institution. Jim realizes that our attempts to speak in a (supposedly) morally pure voice is silencing for many in the community and limits our engagement with the world. Goshen must find a way to honor its Mennonite heritage without silencing the rich and diverse opinions within the community. I think Jim is trying to do that. Well played, Jim.

2) I did not say “symbols do not matter.” I wrote that symbols are inherently mutable in definition.

Anyone can define a symbol as he or she chooses. True, many tie the flag and militarism together. Were this the only way of seeing the flag, though, there would be no debate. As an American myself, I refuse to allow militant Americans to define the flag for me, just as I refuse to allow the religious right to define Christianity for me. I will not allow them make me march in line waving my flag, but I will not let them take my flag from me, either.

There are myriad other aspects of being American that the flag also symbolizes that are neither imperial nor militant. We the People for one. Our military is neither the source of American authority nor the source of American freedom. Our military strength is not what sets us apart from dictatorships. America’s strength and distinction lies in its ideals of democracy, liberty, justice, and rule of law. Try as I might, I cannot find these ideals objectionable. There are plenty of Americans who think of these ideals in singing the national anthem.

As for the anthem itself. I have stated elsewhere that I find the lyrics of the anthem and its war-time background to be problematic. Perhaps good alternatives would be “America the Beautiful” or “This Land is Your Land.” Perhaps this would be a “radical ascent?” It would certainly encourage discussions.

3. I agree one cannot serve two masters. We must break with the state when the state acts against our conscience. This does not mean, however, that we cannot work with the state to accomplish goals that are compatible with our faith. Our faith must be the arbiter.

1) You can’t both discredit and then re-invoke the early Anabaptists to make your own points. For example: Post 31 “Sorry to go off on the early Anabaptists, but their idealized, simplistic, mythologized form is invoked far too often in discussions” and then the paragraph in post 29 “Not all early Anabaptists were pacifist…..”.

2) Symbols matter. The Flag is a symbol. Communion is also a symbol. Yes, symbols only carry the meaning that we choose to ascribe to them. And I am all for the whole re-defining-the-meaning-of-the-flag-and-anthem thing, but the dominant interpretation of the meaning of the U.S. Flag and anthem is one of exclusive loyalty, militarism, and imperialism. It also carries other, more potentially positive meanings, but those are most certainly secondary to it’s role within the U.S. national religion. And seeing as Mennonites are not in a position to define the meaning of these particular symbols, then we must be very careful as to how we choose to use those symbols, not because of what we think they mean, but because of what they already mean to everyone else.

3) The issue of allegiance. It is misguided to say that you can truly split your allegiance. Even Jesus says that No one can serve to masters. Matt 6:24 (sorry to proof text here, but I am a pastor. And yes I know he’s talking about money specifically but it still applies. Money was not only an economic symbol but a political one. Hence the whole ‘give to Caesar what is Caesars’ thing) The issue of the Flag and the Anthem is not just about the meaning of the particular symbol but also about what allegiances we choose to have. Yes, it’s one small step for the school, but it represents something much larger, both for those people who are against it and for those who are for it. This issue wouldn’t have received national attention in the last years if it the symbol of the Anthem and the Flag were meaningless. It’s precisely because they do have specific meaning and are so strongly tied to our allegiances that it matters how we use them.